the effect of four methods of surface activation for
TRANSCRIPT
PR
IFY
SG
OL
BA
NG
OR
/ B
AN
GO
R U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y
The effect of four methods of surface activation for improved adhesion ofwood polymer composites (WPCs)Dimitriou, Athanasios; Hale, Michael; Spear, Morwenna
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives
DOI:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.003
Published: 01/07/2016
Version created as part of publication process; publisher's layout; not normally made publiclyavailable
Cyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication
Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA):Dimitriou, A., Hale, M., & Spear, M. (2016). The effect of four methods of surface activation forimproved adhesion of wood polymer composites (WPCs). International Journal of Adhesion andAdhesives, 68(July), 188-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.003
Hawliau Cyffredinol / General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/orother copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legalrequirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of privatestudy or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.
06. Nov. 2021
Author’s Accepted Manuscript
The effect of four methods of surface activation forimproved adhesion of wood polymer composites(WPCs)
A. Dimitriou, M.D. Hale, M.J. Spear
PII: S0143-7496(16)30049-5DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.003Reference: JAAD1806
To appear in: International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives
Received date: 29 January 2015Accepted date: 4 February 2016
Cite this article as: A. Dimitriou, M.D. Hale and M.J. Spear, The effect of fourmethods of surface activation for improved adhesion of wood polymercomposites (WPCs), International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.003
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted forpublication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version ofthe manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, andreview of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered whichcould affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh
The effect of four methods of surface activation for improved adhesion of wood polymer
composites (WPCs)
A. Dimitriou, M. D. Hale and M. J. Spear*
College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2UW, UK
+44 1248 382029
*corresponding author
Keywords
Wood Plastic Composites, lap shear, surface treatment, adhesion
Abstract
Wood Polymer Composites (WPCs) have attracted a lot of interest in recent years as materials with a
high renewable content. However the adhesion between WPC components is problematic because
of low surface energy and the hydrophobic nature of the most widely used polymer matrices, i.e.
polyolefins. Thus this paper has looked at four surface activation pretreatment methods to improve
adhesion properties for bonding using epoxy adhesives, namely: hydrogen peroxide solution; hot air;
a gas flame; and halogen heating lamps. The treatments were applied to WPC materials made from
60% wood flour in a polypropylene matrix, and lap joint shear strength was measured.
Shear strength values showed that all treatments except the halogen heating lamps increased the
bond strength and the best results were achieved with hydrogen peroxide treatment at a pH of 7.5
(37% improvement); a two pass hot air treatment at a pass speed of 75 mm s-1 (44% improvement);
and a gas flame treatment at a pass speed of 175 mm s-1(41 % improvement).The bond strength was
increased to values that caused failure within the material, rather than at the interfaces of the bond
line.
1. Introduction
Wood Polymer Composites (WPCs) are materials which are composed of lignocellulosic fibres and
thermoplastic polymers in varying percentages [1]. Typically, solid profiles are formed by extrusion,
and this material is suitable for mechanical jointing and bonding by traditional wood jointing
techniques, but adhesion between components is currently poor. During recent years there has
been special interest in developing plastics made using lignocellulose fibres as reinforcing fillers [2]
and to reduce raw material costs. Although these improvements are not new developments the
material is essentially renewable [3] and can be made employing recycled polymer and wood
industry waste [4].
The most commonly used polymers for WPC production are the polyolefins – low density
polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
and polystyrene (PS) [1, 2, 5], which are suitable because of their low processing temperature. High
processing temperatures (above 200°C) can cause thermal decomposition of the lignocellulosic
reinforcement [3, 5]. Polyolefin wastes arise as a solid waste stream from cities, e.g. packaging
materials, thus the re-use as matrix polymer for WPCs can provide green benefits [6]. The
mechanical properties of recycled polymer WPCs are similar to those made from virgin polymers and
in some instances, are better [7].
Jointing of WPCs normally uses mechanical fasteners which have been developed for wood, metal
and polymeric materials [8]. On the other hand glued joints in WPCs can show poor adhesion
properties, in the same manner as the native unfilled polyolefins. This is because of the limited
wettability and low surface energy of the polyolefin matrix polymers [9] and this can be problematic
in designing products such as furniture from WPC materials. In order to improve adhesion ability of
polyolefins, surface activation treatments such as oxidative pre-treatments are essential [10, 11], but
there are few studies in this area for WPC materials. The most common pre-treatments already used
in the polymer industry are chemical, flame, corona, plasma and UV irradiation treatments [11, 12].
Other treatments like fluorination, oxy-fluorination and microwave irradiation are also effective for
surface oxidation, which result in the improvement in adhesion [13, 14].
Moghadamzadeh et al. [15] clearly demonstrated that mechanical surface preparation by sanding
altered the WPC surface from a polymer rich to a more wood-rich substrate. Sanding is a routine
surface preparation technique in the wood furniture sector and has been applied to all samples
including the control in this study. Also specifically for WPCs, Oporto and co-workers [10] performed
a series of chemical, mechanical, energetic and physical pre-treatments (chromic acid, surface
sanding, flame treatment, heat treatment, water, and combination of water-flame treatments).
Almost all of the tested methods showed an improvement in the adhesion strength of their 50.4%
pine, 39.6% PP composite. Heat treatment using a hot air gun was the only case where the adhesion
strength was reduced. These improvements were recorded against unsanded control samples.
A greater number of studies have addressed the use of corona and plasma treatments for WPC
materials [10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18] than have investigated mechanical [10, 15] or flame [15, 19] or
chemical [10, 12, 20] treatments for WPCs. Plasma and flame treatment options are suitable for use
in factory production, however many WPC applications utilise relatively low investment technology,
and a workshop scale of production. Flame and other sources of heat were considered to have
potential for furniture manufacture within this context.
Due to its relatively high cost epoxy resin is a less commonly used adhesive for wood jointing in
furniture industry [21], however it is widely used for polymer composites. Many researchers [10, 15,
19, 20] have used epoxy resin as the adhesion system for studies on WPC materials. A preliminary
study on WPC materials [22] had compared lap shear strength of epoxy with the more traditional
wood glues: PVA and polyurethane. In these tests epoxy outperformed PVA by 243.6% and PU by
198%, so was selected for use in the surface activation study.
In this study hydrogen peroxide and halogen heating lamps were chosen, alongside hot air and flame
pretreatments. These were examined for surface oxidation and adhesion improvement. All the
selected methods were chosen as safe and easily applicable procedures that could performed in a
small workshop without the need of expensive, sophisticated equipment. The hot air gun, flame and
halogen heating lamps were expected to activate the WPC surface as a result of the thermal
degradation of the polymer. This mechanism is known to involve free radical formation by the action
of heat. This may proceed by initiation and propagation as follows:
Polymer → P• + P•
P• + O2 → POO•
POO• + PH → POOH + P•
Peroxides are well known to form oxidative free radicals and are used for surface bleaching and
surface colour modifications for wood [23] and thus suitable for surface application. Hydrogen
peroxide forms a hydroperoxy radical OOH• which causes the surface oxidation as follows:
H2O2 H• + OOH•
OOH• + R• → ROOH
The OOH• radicals react with the material surface in the presence of an activator and significantly
increases the surface polarity. NaOH is the most commonly used activator for controlling the pH of
the treatment solution [23].
2. Materials and Methods
A WPC containing 60% Norway spruce flour, 35.5% polypropylene, 2% coupling agent, 1.5% UV-
stabilizer and 1% colour pigment sourced from Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH Austria. This was
produced under the European research project ERA-NET Cornet/2006/01. The WPC was an extruded
square shaped pipe, allowing samples to be cut from the sides. 30% w/v H2O2 and 1M NaOH were
obtained from Panreac Quimica SAU. A rapid curing two component commercial epoxy resin
adhesive (Saldatutto mix) from Pattex was used for lap joint bonding.
WPC samples were cut with dimensions 40 mm X 20 mm X 5 mm and all samples were sanded with
P220 glass paper to abrade the surface to produce a uniform surface for bonding. The samples were
rinsed with deionised water after sanding to remove any remaining sanding dust on the surface,
similarly, samples were rinsed after every surface activation treatment. Rinsing has been shown to
have no significant effect on retention of surface activation for flame-treated polypropylene [24],
and was required in this study to remove surplus treatment solution from the peroxide treated
samples. They were conditioned at 20°C and 65% RH (relative humidity) to constant weight before
treatment, and again afterwards. After each thermal treatment system (hot air, flame and halogen
lamps), the samples were returned to the conditioning chamber to cool for 15 minutes before the
rinsing step. The samples were then conditioned again to constant weight (2 weeks) before bond
formation.
2.2. Surface pretreatments
Four pre-treatments were evaluated to determine whether they improved bond strength: a
hydrogen peroxide treatment; a hot air treatment; a flame treatment and a halogen lamp treatment.
Within each treatment, variables were examined to give different treatment intensities, and at each
variable 20 replicates were included, giving a total of 560 samples tested. In addition 20 control
samples were prepared by sanding and conditioning, and used as the untreated control set for each
of the four pretreatment methods.
2.2.1. H2O2 treatments
A 30% H2O2 solution was used for the treatments at a series of pH steps from neutral, +/-2. The pH
of the treatment solution was adjusted to 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5 and 9 with NaOH. All treatments
were performed at 20°C. The samples were soaked in the treatment solution for 30 minutes, then
washed with deionised water and reconditioned to constant weight.
2.2.2. Hot air treatment
The samples were placed on a steel plate under the hot air gun. A DEWALT DW 340K 2000 W hot air
gun was fixed to a STAUBLI TX90 robotic arm which was programmed to pass in a straight line
direction over the WPC sample surfaces at a range of velocities (in mm s-1: 18.5, 25, 31, 37.5, 67.5,
75, and 115). Thus more intense heating was achieved at slow pass velocities. A double pass at 75
mm s-1 (2X75 mm s-1) was also included for comparison. The distance between the sample surface
and the hot air gun nozzle was fixed to 25 mm.
2.2.3. Flame treatment
In this treatment a MAPP gas flame torch was used, attached to the same robotic arm as for the hot
air samples, but the vertical distance between the nozzle and sample surfaces was set to 50 mm and
the pass velocities were faster (in mm s -1: 125, 150, 175, 200, 225 and 250).
2.2.4. Halogen heating lamps treatment
For the halogen heating lamp treatment, three 400 W 20 cm long halogen heat lamps were
combined to form a linear array with a spacing distance of 80 mm between them and the array unit
was attached to the robotic arm 20 mm above the WPC sample surfaces. Samples were treated at
slow pass velocities (in mm s-1: 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50).
2.3. Lap joint preparation
The adhesive resin and hardener were mixed at a 1:1 w/w ratio and applied to both sample surfaces
of the lap joint under laboratory conditions at 20°C. Then the joints were gripped with pneumatic
clamps under equal pressure for 15 minutes to ensure sample uniformity within and between
treatment groups. The bonding area was 10 mm X 20 mm (Figure 1a). All samples then conditioned
as above for 48 hours.
Figure 1. (a) Lap joint assembly (b) adhesive failure during shear test (c) material cohesive failure
during shear test.
2.4. Shear testing of lap joints
For the bonding shear strength evaluation a Zwick/Roell Z020 universal testing machine was used.
The mechanical properties were determined according to EN 205:2003 [25] using a 1.5 mm min-1
cross head speed. The sample length was altered to accommodate the available dimensions of
material (Figure 1a), but a lap joint area of 200 mm2 was achieved as required. Mean lap-joint shear
strength values were calculated using data from only samples where failure occurred in the glue
joint. Analysis of the full sample set, including samples which showed material failure, was also
conducted, and will be discussed where relevant in the text.
2.5. Statistical analysis
SPSS statistics version 17.0 software was used to carry out one way ANOVA treated and untreated
control samples’ shear strength values. The shear strength values were analysed with the treatment
factors and untreated material (control) as the independent variable. Homogeneity variance, F-test
and Tukey post hoc HSD multiple comparison test were performed to investigate the possible
statistically significant differences within treatment factors compared to the control.
2.6. Scanning Electron Microscopy
Additional samples were prepared for each surface pre-treatment technique. Pieces of pre-treated
WPC were cut to 20 x 20 mm for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), mounted on stubs and carbon
coated under vacuum (JEOL JEE-4X vacuum evaporator). A JEOL JMS 840A SEM was used to collect
primary (backscattered) and secondary electron images.
3. Results
The shear strength results (Figure 2) showed adhesion strength improvements for all treatments as
compared to the controls, except the halogen heating lamps, which gave lowered adhesion strength
at all speeds tested. The optimal treatment for each type of surface activation (hydrogen peroxide,
hot air gun and flame) gave similar mean results (where all of the data is included) within the range
of 801-836 N and gives proportional improvements in the order of 37-44%; all of these were
considerable improvements. In some instances, where high increases in bond shear strength
occurred, appreciable numbers of failures occurred within the material, although this was not
statistically significant when tested by Tukey HSD test.
a: Hydrogen peroxide b: Hot air gun
c: Flame d: Halogen heating lamps
Figure 2: Lap joint shear strength (N) of the four treatments. In each graph the horizontal dotted line
presents the control mean value (555 N) and the solid horizontal lines the standard deviation (SD) of the
control values. Error bars represent the SD (+/- 1). a) Hydrogen peroxide treatment. b) Hot air gun
treatment. The mean value of the hot air gun at the 150 mm s-1
treatment speed refers to the samples
treated twice with the speed of 75 mm s-1
. c) Flame treatment and d) Halogen heating lamp treatment.
3.1. Hydrogen peroxide treatment Lap-joint shear strength results
Hydrogen peroxide treatment significantly improved bond shear strength at some pH values (6, 7.5,
8 and 8.5, according to Tukey HSD test) but not at others, and at pH values of 7 and 9 they were
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
4 5 6 7 8 9
She
ar s
tre
ngt
h (
N)
Solution pH
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155
She
ar s
tre
ngt
h (
N)
Treatment speed (mm s-1)
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
100 125 150 175 200 225 250
She
ar s
tre
ngt
h (
N)
Treatment speed (mm s-1)
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
0 10 20 30 40 50
She
ar s
tre
ngt
h (
N)
Treatment speed (mm s-1)
equal or worse than the controls. (Figure 2a). Those better than the controls, pH 6, 7.5, 8 and 8.5,
had similarly high values of over 700 N (no significant difference, Tukey HSD test); overall the highest
bond strength was seen at pH 7.5.
A large number, 80% of the of the pH 7.5 samples, failed by fracture within the WPC material rather
than at the bond line, leading to their exclusion from the calculated mean value and standard
deviation, according to the chosen EN 205 protocol. In the WPC samples the failure within the
material occurred as a cohesive failure within the material immediately adjacent to the bonded area
as shown in Figure 1c. This is similar to the failure which would be expected in the beech wood
substrate commonly used in this test protocol. The EN 205 test [25] is predominantly used to
evaluate the performance of adhesives, so failure in the material indicates the adhesive to be
stronger than the substrate. Analysis of the shear strength values for the samples which showed
material failure, revealed that failure occurred at a higher stress (809 N) than the samples which
failed in the bond line (760 N) and the high failure rate (80%) within the pH 7.5 H2O2 treated WPC
contrasts with only a 5% failure with control samples. This emphasises the good bonding with
peroxide surface treatment at pH 7.5. Other peroxide treatments which showed modest increases of
the within material failures (25%, 40%) were at the slightly higher pH values of 8 and 8.5 respectively
and indicates little or no deterioration in the strength of the WPC substrate at these pH values as a
result of the treatment.
3.2. Hot air treatment
The hot air treatments at the faster pass velocities of 67-115 mm s-1 and the double pass of 2 x 75
mm s-1 also had a positive effect on the adhesion shear strength (Tukey HSD multiple comparison
test). In general the slower speeds gave less positive results, but only the 25 mm s-1 was significantly
better than the controls (Figure 2.b).
It is interesting to note that the samples treated by two passes of the hot air at treatment pass
speed of 75 mm s-1 (75 x 2, Table 1) showed an improvement over those treated with a single pass at
the same speed. The double pass of 75 mm s-1 also gave the highest bond shear strength amongst all
of the surface treatment investigated in this study, and the use of multiple passes warrants further
investigation.
The double pass and the fast treatment speed of 115 mm s-1 showed higher failure rates within the
WPC (50%) which was, as with peroxide treatment at pH 7.5-8.5, associated with high adhesion
shear strength values, in contrast to lower values at lower treatment speeds (Table 1). Conversely
the samples treated at 18.5 mm s-1 had lower bond strengths than the control samples and higher
material failure, which is an indication of material degradation. In scanning electron microscopy
studies distinct differences were observed in the surface for the heat treated samples (Figure 3b).
These were smoother than the control, possibly indicating spreading of the polymer under the heat,
reducing the prominence of sanding marks seen in the control (Figure 3a).
Table 1: Shear strength (N) of samples surface modified at different pass velocities of hot air and
percentages of samples which failed within the material rather than at the glue-line.
Property Control Treatment velocity (mm s-1
)
18.5 25 31 37.5 67 75 115 75 (X2)
Shear strength (N) (EN205) 555 467 719 596 615 707 666 768 798
Within material failure (%) 5 10 5 30 30 25 25 50 50
Shear strength all samples (N) 566 493 730 673 674 743 686 789 836
a: b:
Figure 3: Backscattered electron image of a) rough texture in sanded control sample and b) hot air
treated sample (18.5 mm s-1
) where polymer surface (darker areas) appears smoother due to the action of
heat.
3.3. Flame treatment
Of the six different flame treatment pass speeds, from 125 to 250 mm s-1, only two clearly and
significantly (Tukey HSD test) improved the adhesion strength (Figure 2c, 175 mm s-1 and 250 mm s-1)
but all treatments except the slowest velocity (125 mm s-1) had a positive effect. High variation in the
data gave insignificant differences for the other velocities. As well as giving the highest bond
strengths, the samples treated at 175 mm s-1 also had a higher percentage of material failure (65%)
rather than at the bond line. This further indicates that 175 mm s-1 is the optimal treatment velocity
(Table 2). As expected, the samples with decreasing lap shear strengths showed progressively lower
percentage material failures.
Table 2: Shear strength (N) of samples surface modified at different pass velocities of a flame and
percentages of samples which failed within the material rather than at the glue-line.
Control Treatment velocity (mm s-1
)
Property 125 150 175 200 225 250
Shear strength (N) (EN205) 555 472 649 782 621 616 674
Within material failure (%) 5 0 20 65 10 5 25
Shear strength all samples (N) 566 472 666 841 641 631 704
3.4. Halogen heating lamps treatment
All of the halogen heat lamp treated samples had reduced bond strengths and high variability (Figure
2d), with mean values ranging from 451 to 487 N, some 12-19% less than the controls. No material
failure was observed among the treated samples, probably due to the weakness of the bond.
According to the Tukey HSD multiple comparison test, all the samples treated with the halogen
heating lamp were significantly statistically different to the untreated control and there were no
statistically significant differences among the treatment speeds.
4. Discussion
From the micrographs (Figure 3) it is clear that the sanded WPC surface has both wood and
polypropylene components exposed. Both components will interact with the adhesive in different
ways, relating to their surface energy, level of roughness and chemical functionality of the surface.
The surface energy of polypropylene is typically reported as 30.1 mN m-1 and for wood is 40 to 60
mN m-1, resulting in values of around 31 mN m-1 being recorded for WPCs with PP matrices [26, 27].
Reported values for the surface energy of epoxy resins vary with resin chemistry, but range from
39.1 to 51.6 mN m-1 [28, 29], all of which are higher than the surface free energy of the substrate
material, and indicate that poor wetting will occur. In the control samples of this study, which
received sanding only, it is believed that this exposed the wood particles, and provided surface
roughness for mechanical keying of the adhesive. Previous work [15] showed that there was a
significant increase in adhesion after sanding compared with sample surfaces direct from the
polymer moulding process. Sanding is common practice in wood adhesion, so was adopted
throughout this study, prior to additional treatments.
The adhesion shear strength tests reported here have shown that hydrogen peroxide, hot air and
flame treatment all show an improvement in adhesion strength when used as surface pre-
treatments for WPCs. Only the halogen lamp treatment failed to have a beneficial effect under any
of the parameters studied. For the four treatments evaluated, further work to observe changes in
surface chemistry and surface texture development has also been undertaken but will be reported in
paper 2.
Hydrogen peroxide solutions proved an effective treatment for WPC surface activation in order to
improve its adhesion ability at specific pH values, particularly at pH 6 and 7.5 and 8 but less
significantly at other values tested. This method has been previously reported for bamboo [14], but
not in WPC material. The mechanism is believed to relate to free radical formation on the surface,
which is likely to increase surface energy. WPC materials typically have low surface energies, due to
the matrix polymers used. At pH 7.5 hydrogen peroxide gave an increase in shear strength of 37%
but at this value high variation was encountered (SD=97.53). Curiously there was some activation
either side of neutral pH values but not at neutral (pH 7), and towards the extremes of the pH values
tested the values also decreased. At the optimal value the adhesion was sufficiently strong that
shear failure occurred within the material rather than at the adhesive bond line. Further study of the
different chemical mechanisms acting in the mild acidic and mild alkaline treatment solutions have
been undertaken by FTIR spectroscopy and contact angle analysis, and appear to show significant
differences. The effect of the treatment solution on the wood flour component and on the
polypropylene component within the WPC surface, and resulting effects on the adhesion strength,
will be reported in greater depth in a second paper.
Hot air treatment is also a quick and easy pretreatment to improve WPC adhesion and it is much
faster and easier than hydrogen peroxide treatment because it does not require any chemical
preparation and much less time is needed (few seconds) to obtain similar results. The 115 mm s-1
and 2X75 mm s-1 treatment velocities provided the best surface modification, giving an increase in
bond strength of 38% and 44% respectively, resulting in 50% of the samples showing failure in the
material rather than at the bond line. Low velocities resulted in low bond strengths and little within
material failure which highlights the importance of amount of treatment. The improvement seen in
this study contrasts with the results of Oporto and co-workers [10], who showed a 6% strength loss
in their study which also used epoxy resin. They used a pass speed of 25 mm s-1, but a different heat
gun and the heat was applied from a greater distance (5 cm) from the surface. In the current study,
the use of pre-sanded samples for heat treatment, and the shorter distance from the nozzle of the
heat gun gave a significant increase in bond strength (30%).
Another important factor about the heat treatment is the case of the treatment repetition. It seems
that two passes of the gun with the speed of 75 mm s-1 was a more effective procedure than the
single pass at any speed. It could be expected that the treatment exposure would be the key factor
for the treatment effectiveness but effectively a 2X75 mm s-1 treatment is equivalent to a speed of
37.5 mm s-1 in terms of overall treatment time. However the slower treatment pass speed resulted
in much lower shear strength than both the 75 mm s-1 and 2X75 mm s-1 samples. It is likely that the
exposure time of the 37.5 mm s-1 causes higher temperature on the surface, which results in lower
adhesion strength than the 2X75 mm s-1. Therefore the repetition might ensure that a more optimal
temperature is achieved for a short duration twice, which is most probably more important for
priming the WPC surface in order to improve the adhesion strength. Initially it was thought that slow
velocities would result in greater surface activation, but the opposite, in terms of bond strength, was
observed. Adhesion mechanisms are a complex system which involves mechanical, chemical and
energetic factors, which interact to affect the adhesion strength. In WPC materials these interactions
are further complicated by the action of heat on two different substrates, with complex results. It is
likely that at faster speeds the beneficial effect of the flame ionisation of the PP surface contributes
to increased lap shear strength, with minimal change to the wood flour component. These factors
have been further investigated using contact angle analysis to determine surface energy, and will be
presented in another paper.
Although the flame treatment gave high mean bond strength values, particularly at velocities slower
than 125 mm s-1, the results were inconsistent, showing high standard deviation at many of the
treatment velocities. At the optimal velocity of 175 mm s-1 it gave a 41% improvement over the
controls, similar to, but slightly lower than, that of the optimal hot air treatment flame (44%
improvement). In terms of variation at these optimal values the flame treatment fared worse, i.e.
flame 782 N at 175 mm s-1 (SD 76.14); hot air 798 N at 2X75 mm s-1 (SD 47.45) and thus is less stable.
The higher variation could be explained by the effect of the flame on the wood flour component of
the WPC. Despite this, the flame treatment is also an effective and quick method to improve the
adhesion strength of the WPC. It does however also require accuracy in selecting the treatment
speed, as incorrect speeds may result to adhesion strength decrease. In industrial flame treaters the
control of feed speed can be well maintained, with Strobel et al [24] reporting typical values of 100
to 300 m min-1 for their experimental studies. In this study the feed speed was slower (7.5 to 15 m
min-1), which may have contributed to higher levels of oxidation and greater variability in properties.
In a workshop preparing small joint areas where the speed is controlled manually there may be a
further increase in the levels of variability seen. In addition, the flame treatment has a medium level
of risk, as it involves applying a flame on flammable materials and there is a greater risk of volatile
emissions. Although the decomposition products of polypropylene itself are relatively harmless; care
should therefore be taken if transferring the technique to other polymers.
Overall the heat treatments applied by hot air gun and flame showed that they were both effective
treatments for improving the adhesion ability of the WPC and also too slow a treatment, i.e.
excessive heating, led to lowered bond strength. Concerning the treatment method efficiency,
Oporto’s study [10] agrees in the case of flame treatment but disagrees with the heat air gun
treatment. It is likely that parameters such as treatment pass speed, proximity of the flame or hot air
source to the substrate surface, and the width of the area receiving flame or hot air treatment, vary
from machine to machine and have significant influence on the level of ionisation which occurs in
the polypropylene component of the WPC material. The same parameters may also influence the
level of thermally induced change in the wood flour component, albeit small in many cases, and
conflict between the beneficial and adverse effects seen in the two components may explain the
suboptimal results observed in some treatment speeds. This area is worthy of greater investigation
and discussion to seek an optimal treatment.
The halogen heating lamps treatment does not appear to have any advantageous effect on the WPC
adhesion ability. It produces a modified surface that has a reduced adhesion strength, with values
lower than the untreated WPC. This treatment is possibly useful to help us understand the factors
that negatively affect the adhesion strength of the WPC.
5. Conclusions
This study has demonstrated three effective surface pretreatment methods for WPCs: hydrogen
peroxide solutions, hot air and flame. A further treatment using halogen heat lamp failed to show an
improvement in adhesion at any of the speeds studied (10 to 50 mm s-1).
The hydrogen peroxide solutions which showed greatest benefit were pH 6, 7.5, 8 and 8.5. Hydrogen
peroxide at these close to neutral pH values is easily applied and controlled, and offers a simple
system for use in the workshop. A timer and a pH meter is all the equipment required, and the
amount of NaOH which is added into the H2O2 solution for controlling the pH is in very small
quantities that are considered safe [23].
The use of heat for surface activation provided by a hot air gun or from a flame, also improved
adhesive bonding. The majority of conditions studied used single passes of the heat gun or flame
torch. Optimal treatment speeds for the two systems were different – with 115 mm s-1 heat gun and
175 mm s-1 for the flame torch. In the heat gun an additional experiment using two passes at a
slower speed of 75 mm s-1 also showed beneficial results of a similar level.
6. References
1. Stark M.N. and Matuana M.L. 2007. Characterization of weathered wood-plastic composite
surfaces using FTIR spectroscopy, contact angle and XPS. Polym Degrad Stabil 92:1883-1890.
2. Son J., Kim H. and Lee P. 2001. Role of Paper Sludge Particle Size and Extrusion Temperature on
Performance of Paper Sludge-Thermoplastic Polymer Composites. J Appl Polym Sci 82:2709-2718.
3. Rowell R.M. 2007. Challenges in Biomass-Thermoplastic Composites. J Polym Environ 15:229-
235.
4. Cui Y., Lee S., Noruziaan B., Cheung M. and Tao J. 2008. Fabrication and interfacial modification
of wood/recycled plastic composite materials. Compos Part A-Appl S 39:655-661.
5. Clemons C. and Stark N. 2007. Use of Saltcedar and Utah Juniper as Fillers in Wood-plastic
Composites. Forest Products Laboratory Research Paper 641. 17 pp.
6. Selke E.S. and Wichman I. 2004. Wood fiber/polyolefin composites. Compos Part A-Appl S
35:321-326.
7. Adhikary B.K., Pang S. and Staiger P.M. 2008. Dimensional stability and mechanical behaviour of
wood-plastic composites based on recycled and virgin high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Compos
Part B-Eng 39:807-815.
8. Farid S.I., Kortschot M.T. and Spelt J.K. 2002. Wood-Flour-Reinforced Polyethylene: Viscoelastic
Behavior and Threaded Fasteners. Polym Eng Sci 42(12):2336-2350.
9. Ritter G.W. 2000. Surface Preparation IV: Treatment of Plastics II. ASI (Adhesives & Sealants
Industry Magazine) http://www.adhesivesmag.com/articles/85846-surface-preparation-iv-
treatments-for-plastics-ii (Accessed online 19/1/15)
10. Oporto S.G., Gardner J.D., Bernhardt G. and Neivandt J.D. 2007. Characterizing the mechanism
of improved adhesion of modified wood plastic composite (WPC) surfaces. J Adhes Sci Technol
21(11):1097-1116.
11. Pinto A.M.G., Magalhaes A.G., Silva F.G. and Baptista A.P.M. 2008. Shear strength of adhesively
bonded polyolefins with minimal surface preparation. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 28:452-456
12. Gupta B.S. and Laborie M.-P.G. (2007) Surface activation and adhesion properties of wood-fiber
reinforced thermoplastic composites. J. Adhes. 83(11):939-955.
13. Du Toit F.J. and Sanderson R.D. 1999. Surface fluorination of polypropylene 1. Characterization
of surface properties. J Fluorine Chem 98:107-114
14. Mirabedini S.M., Hamid R., Hamedifar Sh. and Mohseni S.M. 2004. Microwave irradiation of
polypropylene surface: a study on wettability and adhesion. Int J Adhes Adhes 24:163-170.
15. Moghadamzadeh H., Rahimi H., Asadollahzadeh M. and Hemmati A.R. (2011) Surface treatment
of wood polymer composites for adhesive bonding. Int J Adhes Adhes 31(8):816-821.
16. Wolkenauer G., Avrimidis E., Hauswald H.M., Militz H. and Viöl W. 2008. Plasma treatment of
wood-plastic composites to enhance their adhesion properties. J. Adhes. Sci. Techn. 22(16):2025-
2037.
17. Liu Y., Tao Y., Lv X., Zhang Y. and Di M.W. 2010. Study on the surface properties of
wood/polyethylene composites treated under plasma. Appl. Surf. Sci. 257:1112-1118.
18. Tao Y. and Di M.W. (2011) Study on plasma treatment and adhesion of wood/polyethylene
composites. Appl. Mechan. Materials 66-68:911-915.
19. Gramlich W.M., Gardner D.J. and Neivandt D.J. (2006) Surface treatments of wood-plastic
composites (WPCs) to improve adhesion. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 20(16):1873-1887.
20. Teng X. and Di M. (2011) Effect of liquid oxidation surface treatment on bonding properties of
wood/polyethylene composites. Appl. Mechan. Materials. 66-68:907-910.
21. Stoeckel F., Konnerth J. and Gindl-Altmutter W. (2013) Mechanical properties of adhesives for
bonding wood – a review. Int J Adhes Adhes 45:32-41.
22. Dimitriou A. (2015) Surface pre-treatment methods for improving adhesion ability in wood
polymer composite for frame and furniture applications. PhD Thesis, Bangor University.
23. Lu K.T. 2006. Effects of hydrogen peroxide treatment on the surface properties and adhesion of
ma bamboo (Dendrocalamus latiflorus). J Wood Sci 52:173-178.
24. Strobel M., Jones V., Lyons C.S., Ulsh M., Kushner M.J., Dorai R. and Branch M.C. (2003) A
comparison of corona-treated and flame-treated polypropylene films. Plasmas and Polymers
8(1):61-95.
25. BSI (2003) BS EN 205: 2003 Adhesives – wood adhesives for non-structural applications –
determination of tensile shear strength of lap joints. 14pp.
26. Mohamed-Ziegler I., Oszlánczi Á., Somfai B., Hórvölgyi Z., Pászli I., Holmgren A. and Fosling W.,
(2004) Surface free energy of natural and surface modified tropical and European wood species. J.
Adhes. Sci. Technol. 18(6): 687-713.
27. Gupta B.S., Reiniati I. and Laborie M-P.G. 2007. Surface properties and adhesion of wood fiber
reinforced thermoplastic composites. Colloid. Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects. 303:388-395
28. Wu S. (1989) Part VI, in: Polymer Handbook, J. Brandrup and E.H. Immergut (Eds), pp.414-426.
29. Occhiello E., Morra M., Morini G., Garbassi F. and Johnson D. (1991) On oxygen-plasma treated
polypropylene interfaces with air, water, and epoxy resins. II. Epoxy Resins. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
42(7):2045-2052.